coolify_stop_application

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly marks the operation as destructive and warns about downtime, which is critical for an agent deciding to use this tool. The flag '[DESTRUCTIVE]' at the start is effective. It does not detail what happens to Docker resources or the state of the application beyond 'stop', but the confirm parameter and docker_cleanup hints are indirectly supported.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the critical '[DESTRUCTIVE]' flag. Every sentence adds value. One might argue that 'Causes downtime' is slightly redundant after '[DESTRUCTIVE]', but it clarifies the specific impact for an application, earning its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal but covers the essential: it stops an application with destructive consequences. It does not explain return values, state transitions, or error scenarios, but for a straightforward stop operation, this may be sufficient. The sibling tools (like coolify_start_application) provide complementary context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter-level details beyond the schema definitions. However, the description's 'destructive' context reinforces the need for the 'confirm' parameter, which is a minor benefit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Stop'), resource ('Coolify application'), and states a key consequence ('Causes downtime'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like coolify_start_application or coolify_restart_application.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description notes the tool is destructive and causes downtime, implying caution. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like coolify_restart_application, or when not to use it (e.g., if only a temporary pause is needed). No prerequisites or context are given beyond the destructive nature.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.